But signature verification is very effective. I have a good deal of experience with it. I work for a hedge fund where our administrator uses signatures to verify identities before moving millions of dollars around (as do they all). The stakes are much higher. And their handwriting experts are really good. I have seen husbands forge a wife’s signature for example (without nefarious intent; they are just being naive and cutting corners), and even when I can’t see a difference, the handwriting experts catch it every time.

One day, things like thumb prints or eyeball scans may take care of this. But signatures are a tried and true approach. Think about it - who is going to invest the time and energy to forge one ballot? To impact one vote. It simply isn’t worth the time and effort of an effective forgery, or the potential penalties for voter fraud. To do it on any scale at all, you’d have to forge thousands of signatures, if not millions. And not get caught.

The proof is in the pudding. In 20 years, out of more than 15 million votes cast in total, they have found something like 45 examples of suspected fraud in Oregon. Let’s say I am remembering the chart I saw wrong and it was 75 - that’s a rate of .0005%.

Elections don’t turn on that. There should have been a national effort to get these things in place, using Oregon as the model, for 6 months by now. The reason November is going to bring chaos is the absence of that effort.